You're right as far as you go, consortium, but I didn't get the impression that was Valthazar's argument.

Let's assume that the childcare gives a net cost to the state. What is magic about the third (or whatever) child? There is no marginal cost to a child, the third one costs as much to care for as the second. And being as we're assuming childcare is a net cost for kids one and two, any arguments about efficiency go out of the window if we're prepared to pay for any of them.

Putting a cap on the number makes no sense, it's solely punitive. If the argument was about an effective usage of resources then the answer would be either to support zero (because its a net drain) or as many as is wanted (because the benefits outweigh the costs). With no increase in marginal costs for successive children, there's no "fiscal responsibility" argument for a cap.

So, yes. I agree with you that money should be used effectively, but that wasn't what was being discussed. The punitive aspect of val's suggested policy was all I was talking about.

I'm not sure we can quite so simply say that childcare is a net cost. If anything isn't the idea that it is a net gain one of the driving forces behind support for it?

As this story shows it is very difficult for a parent without access to childcare to find a job, let alone keep one. That generally means that in economic terms they're a drain on the state both directly and indirectly. Directly because they will claim welfare as an unemployed parent and indirectly because due to being unemployed they're not offering an taxable income for the state. In essence a lack of childcare becomes a two-punch; if the lack of childcare means they can't get a job and need to claim other benefits then the cost of those benefits has to be factored in and because they can't get a job they're not paying the tax they would if they were employed.

So access to free childcare doesn't necessarily mean a net cost. If the amount saved on other benefits by the parent being able to work (thus not claiming them) and the tax gained by them working end up being more than the cost of providing childcare then its a net gain to the state by doing so.

And with that in mind one can certainly put a cap on the number of children covered and still claim that the primary goal is managing money efficiently. Because there will be a point where the number of children covered by the free childcare pushes the cost of the service beyond the money saved and gained by the parent being in work.

Is two the magic number? I don't know... just as I don't know what level of means testing there should be (and I think we'd all accept that there should be some means testing requirement so that a billionaire can't get their childcare paid for by the state). But one can calculate (or at least estimate) what the limits (both on the number of children covered in a family and the threshold for when the service is offered) are to keep it as a net gain.

My company subsidizes an on-campus childcare facility for employees. They have found that having good, affordable daycare for several reasons. The facility is fully staffed by professionals which gives our employees confidence in the quality of care their children will receive. The parents/guardians are also offered medical advantages such as availability of vaccinations and inoculations and frequent checks by the staff nurse to head off viruses and other illnesses. Parents/guardians are encouraged to keep their children home when they are sick and can use personal and sick days to cover lost wages if necessary. This all makes for a more reliable work force and less downtime for the company.

This is basically the same sort of plan a government sponsored program would offer with a copay coming from the parents based on income. The parents are productive members of a workforce returning tax money to the government because they are able to take advantage of the lower cost of childcare. A government sponsored program such as a shelter of some sort that offered childcare to parents/guardians looking for jobs so they can have the time to interview while their children are cared for might have given the woman another option.

I can empathise with the mother who, from my understanding, was torn between a rock and a hard place. I couldn't fathom leaving my children anywhere unsupervised, even for a couple of minutes. I'd be too paranoid about them hurting themselves, or being kidnapped, or even worse. I think it's a sad state of affairs that this particular mother felt she had so little support that her only viable option was to leave her very young children unsupervised in a presumably strange location for an indeterminate amount of time.

That being said, I have to say that I do think she was guilty of the criminal negligence of her children. Regardless of her reasoning, she made a choice to leave her children unsupervised and uncared for, for almost an hour. If she couldn't make arrangements for the children for such a short space of time, then how did she expect them to be looked after while she was working, if she had gotten the job? Would she have left them in the car during her shifts as well?

I do agree that prison might be too extreme a penalty, but she has no business looking after children until she learns to be responsible for their safety. This would be one of the very few instances where I would argue that children should be cared for by someone other than the mother. She's putting them in danger.

This is just one of those situations where you simply can't pick a right direction... I mean, it is possible for good things to happen in the end but either way there is a risk of something bad happening at the same time.

I really don't know what to say on this. Though I do believe the mother shouldn't have been fined unless something bad actually happened to the kids.

Isn't the US 17tr in debt at this point?I know this is a tangential point, but it needs raising. Everyone is saying "let's put in a program for this" et , but don't you think that the government would have done so if it could afford to?You can't afford to put in these programs right now.

Can we afford not to? Right now, the woman is contributing nothing to the US economy. Ignore debt. Any economic student can tell you that the amount of national debt is a red herring. If she manages to get a job, then she's at least paying for part of her impact on the economy, if not creating an actual surplus (as she will have an income, buy food and other necessities, pay taxes, etc.)

In a nutshell, "the child abuses charges were dropped and, after being cleared by protective services, Taylorís children were returned to her." However, as part of the condition for dropping these charges, Shanesha Taylor was barred from accessing donations raised through the crowdsourcing for her legal fees and other expenses. She was also ordered to put the funds (only $40,000 of the $70,000 total (originally $114,000 total - but after taxes)) into a trust for the children, which can only accessed if the children ever choose to go to college (Source).

However, she apparently missed the deadline to put money into a trust fund for her kids, and instead spent $6,000 at a music studio in Tempe to finish her "baby daddy's" rap album (according to someone who alerted her attorney). Her bank statements also show she spent the money on Michael Kors and designer jeans. Civil rights activist Rev. Jarrett Maupin, who led the charge to support Taylor following her arrest ó now says heís done. Maupin says he lined up numerous job interviews for Taylor in the hotel, restaurant and retail industries. Interviews he says she never showed up for (Source). However, Jarrett Maupin himself has been accussed of extortion for political donations by Taylor - so I am not sure who is believable here.

In her defense, "three jobs (total) have been actually offered to her, two were part-time positions with pay that would not even cover the cost of rent let alone childcare and the third was an hour and a half away, and required her to be at work at a time before her daycare facility opened." This article does a great job of presenting the other side of her story.

In the meantime, Taylor is using social media, once again looking for public donations to pay for her legal expenses, and she has not yet found a job (Source). Really confusing situation, and it is difficult to tell who is being honest about what.

While most would be outraged, I don't think the people knew she was homeless. She was a woman going to an interview to make a better life for her children. She didn't have anyone to watch her kids, what was she supposed to do? I haven't followed up with this case since it happened, but I hope things are better for her.

Really confusing situation, and it is difficult to tell who is being honest about what.

I think this is one of the downsides to philanthropy covering these sorts of issues. In Australia she would be provided with these sorts of services through Centrelink and her Job Network Provider, these groups have the resources needed to investigate these situations and while fraud does occur it comes with the heavy risk of being caught, being required to pay back the money and risking prosecution. With crowdfunding it is difficult to ensure that the resources are being allocated in a fair and equitable manner.